Allowed

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021BAIL/19925/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an application filed by Rashid, a driver accused of illegal mining and theft under the Mines Act, IPC, and Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. The court found it a fit case for bail considering parity with similarly placed co-accuses and released him on bond and sureties with strict conditions of trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with strict undertakings regarding court attendance and conduct during trial.

Rashid Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19925 of 2021 Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 39 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 IPC and Section 4/21 of Mines Act, 1952 and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Bhot, District Rampur.

¶6

It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is driver of the vehicle. The applicant is in jail since 23.03.2021. It is further submitted that applicant is neither involved in illegal mining nor has committed theft of sand and the entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and fabricated.

¶7

It is next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Asif Raza and Rashid have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20535 of 2021, respectively, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

I have perused the bail order of co accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co accused person who has already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Rashid, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶17

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.7.2021

¶23

RavindraKSingh

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rihan Vs State of U.P.

Rihan Vs State of U.P.

Abhayraj Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Waseem @ Munna Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal @ Daroga Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another